Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-20-2020, 04:02 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Yeah, so it is important for you to ignore that I also did cover what you claim I missed here in the next part of my reply that you omitted here, not helpful, here is again:
I’m honestly not seeing what you’re getting at.

Your quote is: “Context shows also that even the non candidates that would go for decriminalization are not even saying that, only that people fleeing violence, dreamers and others should not be declared to be criminals when they deserve better treatment than the one coming from racist Trump staff members that still remain in his administration.”

That quote talks about “non candidates”. Why would I address that? I’m not talking about “non candidates”. I skipped over it because I had no idea why you mentioned it; I still have no idea why you mentioned it. My whole thing here is based around talking about the various presidential candidates who want to decriminalize this stuff, not about “non candidates” who want X or Y or Z.

I’m not out to mislead; try looking at your post from my perspective and see if you can figure out why the heck that mention of “non candidates” would lead me to do anything but shrug and get back to the topic at hand.

Quote:
Well, you know I did too, the other stuff was covering the possible ways you are being misled, and the last article does talk about how Ocasio Cortez (Not one of the candidates BTW you will still have to point out what candidate is doing that
What? Various presidential candidates — not ‘non candidates’, not Ocasio Cortez, not any of these other people you for some reason keep bringing up — have, simply and clearly, declared in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Do you genuinely not know this? I mean, yeah, sure, again, this will be easier once there’s a single Dem candidate we can discuss; but, hey, if you need it, here’s a link that seems accurate.

Quote:
The question remains, why support those efforts that are based mostly on bigotry?
That strikes me as begging the question; I’d like you to rephrase it.
  #52  
Old 01-20-2020, 04:59 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m honestly not seeing what you’re getting at.

Your quote is: “Context shows also that even the non candidates that would go for decriminalization are not even saying that, only that people fleeing violence, dreamers and others should not be declared to be criminals when they deserve better treatment than the one coming from racist Trump staff members that still remain in his administration.”

That quote talks about “non candidates”. Why would I address that?
Why? Because usually your say so's are no different from the ones that do mislead others into making them think that Democrats are not doing some decriminalization to deal with inhumane conditions, guess what? It was not just for shits and giggles.

As you finally stumbled in, there was a reason why you needed to show examples of what the main candidates that are remaining said, and the context for your cite was precisely candidates proposing how to deal with the inhuman treatment of families at the border, (made moot BTW thanks to jet another Trump presidential act, but that you seem to miss too)

As per your cite, the point is that who is controlling the executive does matter, the intent of the law was twisted to justify the most inhumane results, (do you still support that?) so if one wanted to deal with the inhumanity one option was to propose removing or changing one section of the law, a section that still does not prevent any authority to catch the criminals that could try to get in.

In any case, per your cite: Biden was not willing to remove that section. And the other main ones concentrated on an specific rule (Yep, you did miss that, it was an specific section that affected families, there was no request to decriminalize immigrants that pose as refugees or fake their relations) Still, what they proposed was made moot by an executive order of the president, who was under pressure as it looked that the other branch, the judiciary, was going to go hard on him for his inhumane and very likely illegal moves on that issue.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-20-2020 at 05:02 PM.
  #53  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:06 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You do realize that even with decriminalization illegal border crossing would still be a civil infraction and the crosser would still be liable to deportation, right? And that in fact, most illegal entrants are deported via civil proceedings without ever being charged with the border-crossing crime?

What is it about the criminalization---not just illegality, which AFAICT no Democratic candidate is opposed to, but actual criminalization---of unauthorized border crossing that you think is so important?


It's alarming to think how many actual or potential Trump supporters probably imagine that decriminalization of illegal border crossings is the same thing as a full-scale open-border policy with no controls on border crossings whatsoever. Absent that misunderstanding, I really don't see why anybody would consider a policy of allowing criminal prosecution for illegal border crossing---a policy that is ineffectual, inconvenient, expensive and infrequently implemented---to be a non-negotiable election issue.



In other words, criminalization of illegal border crossing is arguably a fundamentally stupid policy that inarguably isn't even implemented in most cases of illegal entry, and would massively overburden our court system if applied consistently to all cases. And yet, The Other Waldo Pepper, the continuation of this policy is so important to you that you would be inclined to vote for Trump over any Democratic candidate proposing to discontinue it.

I have just one question for you, TOWP: Why??
I'm not a Trump supporter. Neither am I particularly interested in criminalization or decriminalization of people who illegally enter our country. But I do think detention under threat of deportation is punishment enough to warrant criminal procedure and safeguards, and so I lean toward support for the criminalization of illegal border entry.

On the other hand I am totally against detaining people for "civil" deportation proceedings, and totally for funding an immigration/refugee system that can efficiently process people's applications.

~Max
  #54  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:08 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
That strikes me as begging the question; I’d like you to rephrase it.
Not much to rephrase, do you still want to ignore that many did report that what Trump did and is doing with immigrants is guided by bigotry?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...migration-guru

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-20-2020 at 05:09 PM.
  #55  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:31 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Not much to rephrase, do you still want to ignore that many did report that what Trump did and is doing with immigrants is guided by bigotry?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...migration-guru
To the best of my knowledge, I don’t much give a crap what “many did report that what Trump did and is doing” is guided by. If you can make out a case that a given policy is bad for the country, then by default I’ll be against it; I don’t see that I’d bother to ask what’s guiding it. And if you can make out a case that a policy is good for the country, then by default (a) I’ll be for it; and (b) I don’t see that I’d bother to ask what’s guiding it. With me, the policy stands or falls on its own merits.
  #56  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:35 PM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
To the best of my knowledge, I don’t much give a crap what “many did report that what Trump did and is doing” is guided by. If you can make out a case that a given policy is bad for the country, then by default I’ll be against it; I don’t see that I’d bother to ask what’s guiding it. And if you can make out a case that a policy is good for the country, then by default (a) I’ll be for it; and (b) I don’t see that I’d bother to ask what’s guiding it. With me, the policy stands or falls on its own merits.
What is guiding the policy change often affects how the policy is implemented. So if there is racist intent behind the change, odds are better that it will enforced against a certain subset of the population more than another.

For instance, driving with a broken tail-light is a citable offense for everyone, but data shows that more non-whites are pulled over for it than whites.
  #57  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:47 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
What is guiding the policy change often affects how the policy is implemented. So if there is racist intent behind the change, odds are better that it will enforced against a certain subset of the population more than another.

For instance, driving with a broken tail-light is a citable offense for everyone, but data shows that more non-whites are pulled over for it than whites.
Well, look, if it should be a citable offense, then put me down as being in favor of changing the implementation — pulling over whites more often, say — rather than scrapping it as a citable offense. Do you believe it should be a citable offense?
  #58  
Old 01-20-2020, 06:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I'm not a Trump supporter. Neither am I particularly interested in criminalization or decriminalization of people who illegally enter our country. But I do think detention under threat of deportation is punishment enough to warrant criminal procedure and safeguards, and so I lean toward support for the criminalization of illegal border entry.
What many conservatives and moderates are doing in this case is to miss one key item: the law was not changed, it is clear that who are the ones handling the execution of the law is crucial. The misleading info coming from Trump and goons is to still pretend that they do not have a choice on how they execute the law. They do.
  #59  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:13 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
What many conservatives and moderates are doing in this case is to miss one key item: the law was not changed, it is clear that who are the ones handling the execution of the law is crucial. The misleading info coming from Trump and goons is to still pretend that they do not have a choice on how they execute the law. They do.
As I understand it, enforcement of this particular law (8 U.S. Code § 1325(a)) has been shifty depending on who is in the White House. As I read the law it is pretty clear that 1325(a) describes a crime and provides no room for "priority enforcement" or other selective enforcement. It uses the word "shall", as in such aliens shall be fined or imprisoned.

If you are advocating an interpretation of that law which allows immigration enforcement officers the discretion to simply ignore the law, I am very much against that. If there is a practical need for prosecutorial discretion, I would rather increase the resources available to prosecutors or change the law itself.

~Max
  #60  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:20 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
As I understand it, enforcement of this particular law (8 U.S. Code § 1325(a)) has been shifty depending on who is in the White House.
Precisely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
As I read the law it is pretty clear that 1325(a) describes a crime and provides no room for "priority enforcement" or other selective enforcement. It uses the word "shall", as in such aliens shall be fined or imprisoned.

If you are advocating an interpretation of that law which allows immigration enforcement officers the discretion to simply ignore the law, I am very much against that. If there is a practical need for prosecutorial discretion, I would rather increase the resources available to prosecutors or change the law itself.
That is nice, I did not say that, as pointed before that was the law already, what we got when Trump took over was a line in that law that was interpreted so as to be as cruel as possible and likely reaching illegal results. Very likely why he had to backtrack.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/08/fa...linger-online/
Quote:
Online, though, misinformation about such separations lingers: One deceptive social media post, shared more than 120,000 times on Facebook, erroneously claims that former President Barack Obama separated many more children than President Donald Trump did.

“1900 children separated from parents at border,” the text reads next to a photo of Trump. “Result – Media Frenzy.”

Next to a photo of Obama, it reads: “89,000 children separated from parents at border. Result – Silence.”

As we’ve written before, there were some separations under the Obama administration, but no blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general released a report in January noting that, “historically” such family “separations were rare and occurred because of circumstances such as the parent’s medical emergency or a determination that the parent was a threat to the child’s safety.”

But, the report notes, that changed as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy last spring. The Department of Homeland Security “separated large numbers of alien families, with adults being held in Federal detention while their children were transferred to the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),” according to the report.

That report also said the department had “thus far identified 2,737 children in its care at that time who were separated from their parents. However, thousands of children may have been separated during an influx that began in 2017 … and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children.” The government is under a court order to identify other children who had been separated, but either way, we know the total far surpasses the 1,900 figure used in the meme.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-20-2020 at 07:21 PM.
  #61  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:51 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 864
I have a hard time believing someone who voted for Obama would really switch their vote for Trump so easily. Unless of course they thought voting for Obama was a mistake, in which case they weren't going to vote Dem again anyway.
  #62  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:01 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,987
I confess, it's boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions that Trump has been engaging in.

It's like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.
  #63  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:19 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I confess, it's boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions that Trump has been engaging in.
This. Sure, I can see having differences of opinion on whether illegal border crossing should be a crime (although AFAICT the impossibility of charging offenders with it consistently and fairly under our current system is not a matter of opinion).

But to believe that having an opposing opinion on the issue of decriminalizing illegal border crossing literally makes a Democratic candidate worse than Trump as a potential President? In what alternate reality does that make any sense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2
It's like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.
Except that in this analogy the security guard isn't even accomplishing much in the way of keeping out tramps, since the criminal prosecutions for illegal border crossing are inconsistent, expensive, ineffectual, and waste money without providing an effective deterrent. It's as if your hypothetical security guard spent a lot of money on expensive cages to keep a few of the tramps in while most of them go on trespassing on the property anyway. Oh yeah, and the property's still burning down.

Last edited by Kimstu; 01-20-2020 at 08:23 PM.
  #64  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:23 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is nice, I did not say that, as pointed before that was the law already, what we got when Trump took over was a line in that law that was interpreted so as to be as cruel as possible and likely reaching illegal results. Very likely why he had to backtrack.
It's good that we can come to an understanding on some things. But here, I'm sorry, you have just made quite a leap from 1325(a) to family separations.

1325(a) defines a crime. Aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States outside of designated border crossings commit a crime against the United States. But the penalty for 1325(a) is a fine or jail time - not deportation. You would need a conviction before sentencing an alien for violating 1325(a). Pretrial detention is a problem, but it shouldn't be a problem here any more than in the general case.

The family separations thing, as I understand it, is based off a different part of immigration law. When an immigration officer encounters an alien who has not been admitted to the U.S. and can't convince the officer they have been physically present in the U.S. for the last two years, that officer "shall" order the alien removed from the United States, without further review unless the alien indicates an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution. If such a claim is made, you get the asylum interview and credible fear determination. If there is a credible fear of persecution, the alien "shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." If there is not a credible fear determination, the Attorney General is required to issue regulations allowing the alien to request a prompt review of the determination by an immigration judge. Any alien subject to such a review "shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution". 8 U.S.C. 1125(b)(1).

~Max
  #65  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:35 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I confess, it's boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions that Trump has been engaging in.

It's like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.
Specify; what, exactly, is getting burned down in this analogy? You say that it’s government institutions; I take it it’s not about the Patent and Trademark Office? Presumably not the Small Business Administration? Possibly not the Coast Guard? Everything going okay at the Bureau of Engraving? If you want me to swap in a security guard who won’t keep folks out, tell me what’s getting burned down.
  #66  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:38 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I confess, it's boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions that Trump has been engaging in.



It's like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.
Fear of The Great Replacement is a powerful force.
  #67  
Old 01-20-2020, 08:52 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It's good that we can come to an understanding on some things. But here, I'm sorry, you have just made quite a leap from 1325(a) to family separations.
Nope, it is you who is not following, the line of the law TOWP was pointing at was referring to the position politicians were alleged to have regarding how criminality was applied to likely refugee families. Indeed, not as what the right wing propaganda was implying all along.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-20-2020 at 08:55 PM.
  #68  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:02 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
IOW: It is clear that right wing media never bothered to explain precisely how nuanced the position Democratic politicians really had. TOWP and others just ignore how misleading their sources were and are.

Democrats were accused to have extreme positions regarding how criminality was applied in general terms, when in reality was about the appalling draconian way a part of the rule was applied to likely refugee families.
  #69  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:13 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
IOW: It is clear that right wing media never bothered to explain precisely how nuanced the position Democratic politicians really had. TOWP and others just ignore how misleading their sources were and are.

Democrats were accused to have extreme positions regarding how criminality was applied in general terms, when in reality was about the appalling draconian way a part of the rule was applied to likely refugee families.
How do you figure? I was watching the Democratic debate when they got asked the following: “Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation.” I didn’t get that from some other source at a later date, and I didn’t extrapolate a particular specific to the general case; I just watched their hands fly up in response, is all.
  #70  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:39 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Specify; what, exactly, is getting burned down in this analogy? You say that it’s government institutions; I take it it’s not about the Patent and Trademark Office? Presumably not the Small Business Administration? Possibly not the Coast Guard? Everything going okay at the Bureau of Engraving? If you want me to swap in a security guard who won’t keep folks out, tell me what’s getting burned down.
Well, assuming you've been more or less keeping up with the more highly visible disasters in foreign policy, emergency management, environmental policy, health care and the like, here are some reports from the trenches in lower-profile areas:

Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work
Quote:
In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.

Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus. [...]

“The disregard for expertise in the federal government is worse than it’s ever been,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which has tracked more than 200 reports of Trump administration efforts to restrict or misuse science since 2017. “It’s pervasive.”

Hundreds of scientists, many of whom say they are dismayed at seeing their work undone, are departing. [...]

“Regulations come and go, but the thinning out of scientific capacity in the government will take a long time to get back,” said Joel Clement, a former top climate-policy expert at the Interior Department who quit in 2017 after being reassigned to a job collecting oil and gas royalties.
The Trump Administration Is Launching Stealth Attacks on Veterans
Quote:
But veterans’ cultural cachet is a double-edged sword for the GOP. The conservative movement exists to undermine the notion that the federal government has an obligation to safeguard the well-being of working-class Americans. And veterans are both largely working-class and disproportionately likely to rely on public programs and public-interest regulations for their well-being. [...]

All this presented the Trump administration with a stark choice: It could either show deference to the interests of one of its core constituencies, or maximize its cronies’ ability to profit off of deregulation and privatization (at considerable political risk).

It’s now clear that president Trump has opted for door No. 2. [...]

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has handed its veterans’ health-care agenda over to three dues-paying members of the president’s Florida golf resort. [...] This “troika” played a leading role in ousting David Shulkin from the VA, and orchestrating the administration’s push for privatizing veterans’ health care. [...]

In sum: The Trump administration believes that kneeling during the national anthem is a grievous insult to the men and women who risked their lives fighting for America, but using political power to help payday lenders bury service members beneath unpayable debts — while allowing one’s billionaire friends to override veterans’ preferences for health-care policy — is not.
The Trump administration is waging a quiet war on education
Quote:
The Trump/DeVos vision of American education? Unshackle the rich and let them turn a profit at the expense of working-class students

Perhaps nothing illustrates the perverse nature of Donald Trump’s administration better than his approach to the regulatory state. In Trump’s America, those most zealously dedicated to unraveling federal oversight are in charge of the government, racing to shred laws as quickly as they can.

Although it rarely draws the outrage of his latest unhinged tweet or foible abroad, it is in the president’s Department of Education that this spirit of cruel nihilism is best on display. [...]

For all the ways Trump has shattered the norms of democracy, it is his emboldening of the worst, already existing elements of American culture that will do the most short-term damage to the country. Trump did not pioneer climate crisis denialism and the energy industry’s relentless attacks on environmental regulations, but he did turn the Environmental Protection Agency and interior department over to energy lobbyists. He did not invent profit-seeking bureaucrats, but he set free Elaine Chao, his transportation secretary, to boost the profile of her family’s powerful shipping company.

Education, too, is being pursued in consummate Trump style. For-profits are liberated, regulations are eviscerated and students are left to fend for themselves – drowning in debt so industry pals of DeVos and Jones can live to fight another day.
The Trump Administration Has a Huge Number of Federal Agency Vacancies
Quote:
[...] the Center For Economic Policy Research reminded me on Tuesday that one of my original mental images of Camp Runamuck was of hundreds of telephones ringing plaintively and unanswered in hundreds of government offices, because the new administration was too lazy, or ignorant, or deliberately negligent to fill the positions, thereby lazily, or ignorantly, or deliberately and negligently crippling the administrative functions of the national Executive. The CEPR regularly reports on this very real phenomenon, concentrating on the more obscure agencies and departments. [...]

Quote:
Many of these agencies’ boards are statutorily designed to be politically balanced. [...] This President, however, has chosen to break with precedent and has consistently put forward nominations for Republican seats without a corresponding Democratic partner even when they put boards out of political balance.
Oh, you asked about the Coast Guard?
Quote:
Trump's Budget Reduces Coast Guard Funding by $1.3 Billion [...]

The administration's budget proposal also calls for the Coast Guard to eliminate its top counterterrorism unit, the Maritime Security Response Team, and all of its regional Maritime Safety and Security Teams. In addition to other duties, the Coast Guard small-boat units provide the waterborne security detail for Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach during presidential visits.

“It’s nonsensical to pursue a policy of rebuilding the Armed Forces while proposing large reductions to the U.S. Coast Guard budget,” wrote Representatives Duncan Hunter and John Garamendi, leaders of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, in a letter to the president dated March 2. The cuts “serve to the detriment of U.S. national security and create exposures that will most certainly be exploited by transnational criminal networks and other dangerous actors,” they added. "These proposed cuts . . . will guarantee negative consequences."
There are hundreds of similar reports on the way the Trump administration's combination of incompetence and deliberate "malign neglect" is damaging the ability of agencies and departments across the federal government to do their jobs. For someone who's not (yet) a Trump supporter, TOWP, I'm astonished at your apparent lack of awareness that this is what his administration has been fundamentally about from the get-go. I mean, have you just not been paying attention?
Quote:
A war on government is unfolding. As Steve Bannon held court at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February [2017], he boasted that President Trump’s Cabinet heads were chosen for “deconstruction of the administrative state.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper
If you want me to swap in a security guard who won’t keep folks out
We've already pointed out to you several times that criminalizing illegal border crossings doesn't actually have a useful effect in "keeping folks out". You're getting the property set on fire without even any significant improvement in anti-trespasser security to show for it.
  #71  
Old 01-20-2020, 09:53 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Nope, it is you who is not following
Well, we can agree on that point too. :S

~Max
  #72  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:32 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
How do you figure? I was watching the Democratic debate when they got asked the following: “Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation.” I didn’t get that from some other source at a later date, and I didn’t extrapolate a particular specific to the general case; I just watched their hands fly up in response, is all.
Well thanks for showing that Democrats did remember how the civil law is. Again, the link you presented was about how far Trump changed priorities so as to justify separating families.

And that goes once again to the item that is the issue: Why do you support that?
  #73  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:51 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
We've already pointed out to you several times that criminalizing illegal border crossings doesn't actually have a useful effect in "keeping folks out". You're getting the property set on fire without even any significant improvement in anti-trespasser security to show for it.
Take it up with begbert2, who described it as being “like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.” I was — in good faith — replying to that, not bringing it up.

And while you’re taking issue with someone analogizing one part to “a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property,” I’m not seeing how the rest of what you posted makes for a terrific analogy to “burning the property down.” Do you figure I should disregard that as mere hyperbole, or do you think the stuff you’re on about is — in actual fact — the equivalent of burning it down? Or is it to be analogized to a functional thing? Some kind of thing where there’s, like, a side analogy to be made to Dow Jones performance reflecting confidence? Something about what’d be in store, instead, if folks who’d decriminalize illegal border crossings applied that approach to a bunch of other stuff?
  #74  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:17 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well thanks for showing that Democrats did remember how the civil law is. Again, the link you presented was about how far Trump changed priorities so as to justify separating families.

And that goes once again to the item that is the issue: Why do you support that?
Why do I support what? I’m against decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and I’ve pointed out that various presidential candidates shot their hands up when they got asked a remarkably straightforward question about it.

And the link you mention leads off with a quick mention of the following: “Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” Granted, it then goes on to mention Trump’s priorities — but that’s my point, that a Democratic candidate who’s willing to keep it criminal can get my vote by differing from Trump’s priorities inside that context. But a candidate who, as per that link, declares for decriminalization isn’t merely proposing different priorities inside that context.
  #75  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:22 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Why do I support what?
If you vote for Trump you will support it. (and all the unscientific efforts of him and other crimes Trump will continue to do)

As for keeping it criminal, it was usually just a civil crime, the criminal statute was for.. well, criminals and it was employed against repeated offenders that crossed the border who did not get the hint, the problem I see you have is that you are still falling for the twisted version of events coming from misleading right wing sources.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-20-2020 at 11:25 PM.
  #76  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:32 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
If you vote for Trump you will support it. (and all the unscientific efforts of him and other crimes Trump will continue to do)

As for keeping it criminal, it was usually just a civil crime, the criminal statute was for.. well, criminals and it was employed against repeated offenders that crossed the border who did not get the hint, the problem I see you have is that you are still falling for the twisted version of events coming from misleading right wing sources.
What is this weird obsession you have with right wing sources? You clearly disagree with my position; why isn’t it enough to simply point out why you disagree with it, instead of adding in this bizarre claim of falling for a version that comes from those sources, when I happen to know that, er, no, that’s not it? It just makes me stop thinking you might have a point, because I’m busy thinking, oh, wait; does he just make things up? Just tosses stuff out there, willy-nilly?
  #77  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:36 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
BTW TOWP, It is clear that you have not figured out yet that even looking at your cites there is no intention by the Democrats to get rid of the criminal law, only that under some circumstances, like the immigrants showing real danger for their lives, should be taken into account as reasons why not to apply the criminal rules against immigrants, to not separate families, and for the administration to follow the law. Apparently that is too much to ask.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...t-asylum-cases
Quote:
Under the Migrant Protection Protocols — better known as Remain in Mexico — Trump administration officials have pushed 37,578 asylum seekers back across the U.S. southern border in roughly seven months, according to Homeland Security Department reports reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. One-third of the migrants were returned to Mexico from California. The vast majority have been scattered throughout Mexico within the last 60 days.

While their cases wind through court in the United States, the asylum seekers are forced to wait in Mexico, in cities that the U.S. State Department considers some of the most dangerous in the world. They have been attacked, sexually assaulted, and extorted. A number have died.

In dozens of interviews and in court proceedings, current and former officials, judges, lawyers and advocates for asylum seekers said that Homeland Security officials implementing Remain in Mexico appear to be violating U.S. law, and the human cost is rising. Testimony from another dozen asylum seekers confirmed that they were being removed without the safeguards provided by U.S. law. The alleged legal violations include denying asylum seekers’ rights and knowingly putting them at risk of physical harm — against federal regulations and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the foundation of the U.S. immigration system. U.S. law grants migrants the right to seek protection in the United States.
  #78  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:38 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
What is this weird obsession you have with right wing sources? You clearly disagree with my position; why isn’t it enough to simply point out why you disagree with it, instead of adding in this bizarre claim of falling for a version that comes from those sources, when I happen to know that, er, no, that’s not it?
Because I wanted to think you were human... . And as many I have found with many like you, you are not special when you claim that you figured this all by yourself. Fie to that, all humans do get their information from somewhere, it just so happens that some are aware of where it comes, while some are still telling themselves that they are an island.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
It just makes me stop thinking you might have a point, because I’m busy thinking, oh, wait; does he just make things up? Just tosses stuff out there, willy-nilly?
Just you thinking ignorantly, that is clear.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-20-2020 at 11:41 PM.
  #79  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:45 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Take it up with begbert2, who described it as being “like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.”
I already did, in post #63.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper
And while you’re taking issue with someone analogizing one part to “a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property,” I’m not seeing how the rest of what you posted makes for a terrific analogy to “burning the property down.”
Why not? Do you feel that only literal destruction of the US physical infrastructure is an appropriate outcome to warrant such a simile? If not, could you kindly clarify exactly what degree of non-literalness you're willing to accept in an analogy?

And I must say it's a little bit...hmmm...that you're taking exception to "burning the property down" as a metaphorical representation of the Trump administration's frontal assault on governance, but have apparently no problem with "tramps" as a metaphorical representation of border-crossing immigrants and refugees.

I mean, seriously, TOWP. You read a mass of extensive cites about the various abnormally corrupt and venal ways that the Trump administration is sabotaging and exploiting the workings of the federal government for the benefit of grifting cronies and anti-democracy ideologues, and your reaction is merely to complain that the phrase "burning the property down" is too hyperbolic?

You seriously still feel that all that shit---besides all the foreign policy, impeachable offenses, environmental, healthcare etc. major issues that I only mentioned in passing---is minor enough to warrant your picking Trump over any Democrat who advocates not continuing to waste federal time and money on arbitrary, ineffective criminal prosecutions of unauthorized border crossers?

Because if so, then you have an extremely peculiar definition of "minor". What, in fact, would you consider non-minor misconduct on Trump's part? What sort of further atrocity would Trump have to commit in order for you to consider him a worse choice for President than somebody who holds this perfectly reasonable and practical view (even if it doesn't entirely align with your own view) on decriminalizing illegal border crossing?


FFS. We're told all the time that we're not supposed to call Trump supporters "stupid" because it alienates them and hurts their feelings. But what are we supposed to say when they're deliberately advocating positions that are stupid?

"Hmm, yes, I see your very good point about Trump's massive corruption and incompetence and dismantling of governance structures being less undesirable in a President than the reasonable opinion about immigration law held by a far more intelligent, informed and ethical politician. But have you considered..." WTF fuck that noise. This is the Straight Dope, and this is the Pit, and your position is glaringly, monumentally, blatantly stupid.
  #80  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:53 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
BTW TOWP, It is clear that you have not figured out yet that even looking at your cites there is no intention by the Democrats to get rid of the criminal law, only that under some circumstances, like the immigrants showing real danger for their lives, should be taken into account as reasons why not to apply the criminal rules against immigrants, to not separate families, and for the administration to follow the law. Apparently that is too much to ask.
No, that’s — wait, do you literally not get this? That a number of the presidential candidates do, in fact, support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally, and think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation? Is that what we’re arguing over?

(And, again: why is the argument taking place here, and not in another forum?)

Quote:
And as many I have found with many like you, you are not special when you claim that you figured this all by yourself. Fie to that, all humans do get their information from somewhere, it just so happens that some are aware of where it comes, while some are still telling themselves that they are an island.
I’m telling you, I was watching the debate; I heard the question get asked, and I then saw the hands go up in real time. Fie to that?
  #81  
Old 01-20-2020, 11:54 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Correcting a line in my previous post to TOWP:

And when I remember about all the ones I have seen before that ignore a lot, you are not special when you claim that you figured this all by yourself. Fie to that, all humans do get their information from somewhere, it just so happens that some are aware of where it comes, while some are still telling themselves that they are an island.
  #82  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:00 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
No, that’s — wait, do you literally not get this? That a number of the presidential candidates do, in fact, support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally, and think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation? Is that what we’re arguing over?
No really, it is you the one who is not getting that the Democrats are not supporting the elimination of the criminal penalties, only that you are unwilling to see that the context is about doing the humane thing and propose exceptions to some of those undocumented people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m telling you, I was watching the debate; I heard the question get asked, and I then saw the hands go up in real time. Fie to that?
Yes, because you are missing the forest for those trees that you insist are the whole thing. Civil law indeed does not allow for the implications Trump and their goons are making about the Democrat candidates.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-21-2020 at 12:03 AM.
  #83  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:14 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
"Hmm, yes, I see your very good point about Trump's massive corruption and incompetence and dismantling of governance structures being less undesirable in a President than the reasonable opinion about immigration law held by a far more intelligent, informed and ethical politician. But have you considered..." WTF fuck that noise. This is the Straight Dope, and this is the Pit, and your position is glaringly, monumentally, blatantly stupid.
That’s just it; I’m honestly not sure they understand what borders are. I find their position to be — as you say — so glaringly and monumentally and blatantly stupid that I wonder whether they actually get the point of having borders. The moment I saw those hands fly up in response to that question, I thought to myself, wait; do they genuinely not realize how serious a matter it is for someone to cross our border?

I can’t give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raised their hand in response to that question; I don’t know what other idiocies they’re ready to raise their hands to, and I’m in absolutely no hurry to find out.
  #84  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:17 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I can’t give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raised their hand in response to that question; I don’t know what other idiocies they’re ready to raise their hands to, and I’m in absolutely no hurry to find out.
Fuck off, troll.
  #85  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:18 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
No really, it is you the one who is not getting that the Democrats are not supporting the elimination of the criminal penalties,
Yes, they are. You’re getting this wrong. I don’t know why or how you’re getting this point wrong, but various Democrats who are currently in the presidential race have in fact taken that exact position on this exact issue. I’m actually kind of amazed that no one else here is correcting you on this point.
  #86  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:19 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
That’s just it; I’m honestly not sure they understand what borders are. I find their position to be — as you say — so glaringly and monumentally and blatantly stupid that I wonder whether they actually get the point of having borders.
They do, as pointed many times before, hence pointing at the factcheck early that shows that, funny that you pretended that that was not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
The moment I saw those hands fly up in response to that question, I thought to myself, wait; do they genuinely not realize how serious a matter it is for someone to cross our border?
The civil law does take it seriously, thank you very much. Problem was to apply the criminal part in inhumane ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I can’t give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raised their hand in response to that question; I don’t know what other idiocies they’re ready to raise their hands to, and I’m in absolutely no hurry to find out.
Good thing we have fact checkers to figure that out, but if you want to continue to be a willful ignorant...

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-21-2020 at 12:20 AM.
  #87  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:24 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Yes, they are. You’re getting this wrong. I don’t know why or how you’re getting this point wrong, but various Democrats who are currently in the presidential race have in fact taken that exact position on this exact issue. I’m actually kind of amazed that no one else here is correcting you on this point.
Because I pointed at the context of your cite. It shows that they were taking a position on one statute (again, not the whole criminal law) because of the inhumane way Trump was using the rules. They are not correcting me because I also pointed out that Trump himself has made their concern about family separation a moot point.

And hence a moot reason why to consider voting for an abuser of the law as shown in post #77

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-21-2020 at 12:26 AM.
  #88  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:27 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The civil law does take it seriously, thank you very much.
Not nearly seriously enough, thank you very much. (Out of curiosity: are there any other crimes that you think should instead be civil offenses, because in your opinion that’d be serious enough?)
  #89  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:35 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Because I pointed at the context of your cite. It shows that they were taking a position on one statute (again, not the whole criminal law) because of the inhumane way Trump was using the rules.
They were asked whether they think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime. They proceeded to answer that question — not some other question about whether it should remain a crime but get used in a less inhumane way.

That’s why the link says “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime” — though I of course didn’t need to learn this or that from the link; I knew it right when I saw hands get raised.
  #90  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,782
@ The Other Waldo Pepper — Sincere thanks and kudos for posting your opinions here, despite knowing that some opinions will be very unpopular. Your detractors seem relatively civil despite that this is the Pit. You're welcome to continue using this thread, which I started, for your discussion.

I highly compliment you on your calmness and sincerity, in sharp contrast to other Trumpists here.

But frankly I think it would be more appropriate to start an IMHO thread titled "Ask me why I'd prefer Trump as President over Warren." Substitute for "Warren" whichever specific top Dem front-runner you are least happy with. Instead of IMHO post the thread in MPSIMS perhaps, but probably not the Pit, just to avoid name-calling.

Better than a debate over a single issue (e.g. illegal border crossings), an "Ask me why I prefer Trump for President over {Hickenlooper}" thread would get a fuller range of opinions and counter-opinions on display. (Again, "Hickenlooper" is just a place-holder here. Please choose your least favorite from among the front-runners. I'd prefer you NOT pick Sanders: At least make it a Democrat.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
For one: is the candidate in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings? That strikes me as specific and plausible, and it’d incline me to vote for Trump instead.
I do have sympathy for your viewpoint here. I know Americans who have spent long months or even years and $1000's on lawyer fees hoping to comply with U.S. Immigration laws. It's a slap in their face to tell them they'd be better off flying to Juarez and hiring a coyote. But it's a very complicated and difficult issue. There should be other, even more interesting, issues that can be discussed when you start the "Ask me why I prefer Trump for President over {Specific Name}" thread.

Thank you.
  #91  
Old 01-21-2020, 12:55 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
do they genuinely not realize how serious a matter it is for someone to cross our border?
Don't leave us waiting - how serious a matter IS it? What is the average result of said illegal border crossing, aside from the illegal border crossing? Is it more, or less, serious than law enforcement failing to confiscate illegally owned weapons, or people being caged then put back in situations that are leading to their deaths at the hands of American-funded drug cartels?
  #92  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:05 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
There should be other, even more interesting, issues that can be discussed when you start the "Ask me why I prefer Trump for President over {Specific Name}" thread.

Thank you.
Uh, yeah; but, as I’ve said, I figure the right time for that will be — well, when the Dems pick a candidate. I’m not sure why you’re keen on narrowing it down to one specific name before even the upcoming stuff in Iowa and New Hampshire; I’d sure prefer to debate the question once the Dems have narrowed it down to one.
  #93  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:07 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
They were asked whether they think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime. They proceeded to answer that question — not some other question about whether it should remain a crime but get used in a less inhumane way.
Well, thanks for repeating what I said, read I'd again. You seem to have a problem that someone is aware already of how they raised their hands, and is also aware of how that does not omit the context, no matter how much you want it.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-21-2020 at 01:07 AM.
  #94  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:38 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I do have sympathy for your viewpoint here. I know Americans who have spent long months or even years and $1000's on lawyer fees hoping to comply with U.S. Immigration laws. It's a slap in their face to tell them they'd be better off flying to Juarez and hiring a coyote.
As someone that also did that bit about $1000s of fees to get my wife to the USA, I can then say that that is a very shallow point of view.

The big reason why that apparent "gotcha" that TOWP is shallowly and inhumanely depending on, came to be because Trump decided to stop using civil law and more the criminal one, and the revolt there was because what Trump did resulted in family separations. The cruelty and very likely breaking of laws still continues as shown in post #77

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-21-2020 at 01:41 AM.
  #95  
Old 01-21-2020, 01:45 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Don't leave us waiting - how serious a matter IS it?
Quite serious. Like, if the day ever comes when we’re debating whether to kick somebody out of the country, I don’t want to give anyone a reason to say, oh, well, it’s not like the guy committed a crime, because this was just a civil matter and he’s already paid in full, so, really, how serious a matter IS it? And why are we turning people away at gunpoint if it’s only a civil matter? We’re not talking about a crime, so, c’mon, how serious a matter IS it?

I want to make clear exactly how serious this is: serious enough that I want to have criminal penalties on the table.

Quote:
What is the average result of said illegal border crossing, aside from the illegal border crossing?
I’m not interested in the average. If someone wants to make a case for why we should expect good results from letting them cross the border, then let them do so, so we can evaluate it and maybe let them in legally — or, y’know, turn them away, if they come up short. And we need to be able to take appropriate action against them if they get turned away and then try to come in illegally — or if they skip over the part about being evaluated, to instead go straight to shooting for illegal entry.
  #96  
Old 01-21-2020, 05:08 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
I'm still having a hard time grasping the concept of "I don't want poor border crossers to break the law, so I will vote for a President who has repeatedly broken and continues to break the law himself and hires others who have done and are doing the same", but I suppose everyone has their priorities.
  #97  
Old 01-21-2020, 07:14 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'm still having a hard time grasping the concept of "I don't want poor border crossers to break the law, so I will vote for a President who has repeatedly broken and continues to break the law himself and hires others who have done and are doing the same", but I suppose everyone has their priorities.
Oh, that’s good. But for just a moment, flip it around: imagine what it’s like to hear someone tell me what they think of the millions of illegal aliens now in this country, and their opinion is, oh, well, that shouldn’t actually be a crime; for those who are already here, and for those who want in, I support decriminalization. I figure that’d soon enough be the ruin of this country — like unto burning down a property, one might say — and, if a Democratic candidate for president comes out in favor of that, while a Republican stands against that, then you could say I’m “having a hard time grasping the concept” of those who side with illegal aliens suddenly acting like they care about the laws on the books; as far as I can tell, they’ll torch those laws just as soon as they get the chance to burn the whole thing down.

I can say that I want the accusations against the president looked into: he’s been impeached, he now faces a trial, he can have his say on the matter, and maybe those who sit in judgment will let him stay put once a decision gets made about whether he should be convicted and removed, but maybe he’ll find himself in a position where criminal charges can be brought against him — and, if so, maybe he’ll eventually wind up doing prison labor — and, gosh, I’m all for that process.

And if you ask me about someone who isn’t here legally? Well, gosh: they can have their say, and we should pass judgment on whether it’s okay for them to stay put, and maybe they’ll wind up (a) convicted of a crime and (b) doing prison labor.

Figure that’s consistent.
  #98  
Old 01-21-2020, 08:55 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I’m not interested in the average. If someone wants to make a case for why we should expect good results from letting them cross the border, then let them do so, so we can evaluate it and maybe let them in legally — or, y’know, turn them away, if they come up short. And we need to be able to take appropriate action against them if they get turned away and then try to come in illegally — or if they skip over the part about being evaluated, to instead go straight to shooting for illegal entry.
I guess that counts as a good result for you. /s

Only that that is relying on weapon's grade ignorance.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...-crazy-2019-10
Quote:
A recent New York Times report found that President Donald Trump asked aides if soldiers could shoot migrants crossing the US's southern border in the legs to slow them down, among other brutal ways of keeping them out of the country.

It is a war crime for troops to shoot at civilians who are not endangering them, particularly those from countries that the US is not at war with. Customs and Border Patrol agents also must follow rules about the use of force, about which Trump seems wholly ignorant.

An expert in police use of force tells Insider that the idea to shoot people crossing the border in the legs is both "bats--- crazy" and "unconstitutional."

As the Times pointed out, Trump had publicly said that soldiers should shoot migrants if they threw rocks; but privately, he suggested that they be slowed by bullets to the legs — a suggestion his staff told him was illegal.

Peter Moskos, a professor in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, as well as a former Baltimore city police officer, told Insider that the suggestion was "bats--- crazy, yes. It's clearly unconstitutional."
  #99  
Old 01-21-2020, 09:18 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Oh, that’s good. But for just a moment, flip it around: imagine what it’s like to hear someone tell me what they think of the millions of illegal aliens now in this country, and their opinion is, oh, well, that shouldn’t actually be a crime; for those who are already here, and for those who want in, I support decriminalization. I figure that’d soon enough be the ruin of this country — like unto burning down a property, one might say — and, if a Democratic candidate for president comes out in favor of that, while a Republican stands against that, then you could say I’m “having a hard time grasping the concept” of those who side with illegal aliens suddenly acting like they care about the laws on the books; as far as I can tell, they’ll torch those laws just as soon as they get the chance to burn the whole thing down.
And as far as research shows, you are ignorant on this one too.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is...or-less-crime/
Quote:
But the available research that estimates the relationship between illegal immigration and crime generally shows an association with lower crime rates. The impetus is on the president to provide evidence of his claim, and Trump instead simply cited statistics on violent crime committed by all noncitizens without attempting to compare those figures to crimes committed by native-born residents.
  #100  
Old 01-21-2020, 09:19 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Oh, that’s good. But for just a moment, flip it around: imagine what it’s like to hear someone tell me what they think of the millions of illegal aliens now in this country, and their opinion is, oh, well, that shouldn’t actually be a crime; for those who are already here, and for those who want in, I support decriminalization. I figure that’d soon enough be the ruin of this country — like unto burning down a property, one might say — and, if a Democratic candidate for president comes out in favor of that, while a Republican stands against that, then you could say I’m “having a hard time grasping the concept” of those who side with illegal aliens suddenly acting like they care about the laws on the books; as far as I can tell, they’ll torch those laws just as soon as they get the chance to burn the whole thing down.

I can say that I want the accusations against the president looked into: he’s been impeached, he now faces a trial, he can have his say on the matter, and maybe those who sit in judgment will let him stay put once a decision gets made about whether he should be convicted and removed, but maybe he’ll find himself in a position where criminal charges can be brought against him — and, if so, maybe he’ll eventually wind up doing prison labor — and, gosh, I’m all for that process.

And if you ask me about someone who isn’t here legally? Well, gosh: they can have their say, and we should pass judgment on whether it’s okay for them to stay put, and maybe they’ll wind up (a) convicted of a crime and (b) doing prison labor.

Figure that’s consistent.
Well, that makes perfect sense as long as one accepts your gross exaggeration of the damage done by illegal immigrants and the gross minimization of the damage being done by this administration. I mean, there have been many studies showing that illegal immigrants actually provide a net benefit to the country; conversely, the Republicans are currently openly undermining the rule of law, the judiciary and the electoral system with the support of foreign governments. But if you squint just the right way and very very carefully select your criteria and which evidence you're willing to consider vs which evidence you handwave away, then the thing you're worried about is definitely a bigger threat to the country.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017